W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > August 1996

Re: strength of extra-CSS style imperatives

From: Stephanos Piperoglou <stephanos@hol.gr>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 00:50:14 +0300 (EET DST)
To: "Galarneau, Neil" <ngalarneau@concord6.powersoft.com>
cc: "'www-style'" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.960823001752.1133C-100000@trillian.hol.gr>
On Thu, 22 Aug 1996, Galarneau, Neil wrote:

> 1) pre-CSS HTML style tags like <B> and <FONT>

These should be depreciated. An idea would be that in Cougar, the EM,
STRONG, CODE etc. tags be given 1-letter names while B I S U etc be given
longer names to encourage useability and readability of the former. This is
something that has puzzled me since HTML 2.0, and now that I see STRIKE
being converted to S as another listmember pointed out, I don't understand
how the authors of Cougar expect authors to prefer the content tags.

I think the whole schieme should be: (This list is taken from "HTML Features
at a glance, http://www.w3.org/pub/WWW/MarkUp/Wilbur/features.html)

Font Style Elements


Phrase Elements

EM -> E
DFN -> D
SAMP -> SA or SM
KBD -> K
VAR -> V

This would not conflict with existing specs (with the possible exception of
S which is being implemented in the latest versions of Navigator, but I
think this is a very small concession, since very little people have
actually used it anywhere).

> So my question is: when CSS is present in a document with these
> non-CSS style directives, how should we treat the non-CSS stuff?

Probably override them in all cases, that would be safest. There would be
little reason for a sensible HTML designer to include such tags if he's
using style sheets. The idea of having three levels of markup (one for
rendering on style-less browsers that care for presentation, one for those
who don't, and one for style-aware browsers) is preposterous. The point of
CSS is to remove *all* presentational markup from HTML.

I always use this rule, and I think it will apply to everyone:

I will make pages that are OK on all current browsers, regardless of
platform, interface, resolution or whatever. Browsers that are *aware* of
current specs, even if they can't render them, whould be OK.

I preview my pages with IE, Netscape, Mosaic and Lynx. Netscape and Lynx are
the most important. Especially when I'm designing pages professionally, I
want them to look stunning on Netscape, but I'm conscious enough that they
look good on Lynx. This pretty much covers everything, I believe.

The above proposal will mean that lynx or speech-readers and braille
renderers will be OK. Same for phrase elements... I don't know much about
braille, but I suppose a speech reader would say EMphasized or STRONG words
louder as if emphasizing them in speech, ignoring the CSS.

The bottom line is, in a CSS world, tags like B and FONT won't be used. They
will be marks of a treacherous transitional period in the Web (the one we
are currently in).

= Stephanos Piperoglou = stephanos@hol.gr = http://users.hol.gr/~stephanos/ =
  Four lines in a .sig can't say enough about why you should visit my page!
"I want peace on earth and good will toward man"
"We're the United States Government, we don't do that sort of thing!"
                                    [ from the film "Sneakers" ]

                                                       ...oof porothika! (tm)
Received on Thursday, 22 August 1996 17:51:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:26:40 UTC